Democracy or Monarchy: Which is better?

[ecyor0]

Is a democracy better than any monarchy ever was, or can a monarchy be more than a democracy can ever hope to be? Discuss (nicely!)

I'll start with my views:


Democracy

The more stable system of the two. Ruled by majority opinion, meaning no-one should feel that they have no say in how the country functions. However, people do nonetheless. Also, the elected officials know that their time in office is limited, so they focus only on short term problems - long term problems are hardly even considered unless they can be used as leverage against an opposing party. Also, because majority rules, mediocrity rules - the system tries to please everyone, which doesn't work. Decisive action of any kind is generally mired in political debate and one-up-manship. Also, there is nothing to stop the government performing decidedly undemocratic actions in secret.


Monarchy

A very fickle system. The prosperity of the country is tied to the strength of a single individual, meaning that as the monarch fails, the country fails. That said, when the ruler is strong the country enjoys incredible prosperity. Throughout history, the successful empires and kingdoms of the world have been the ones with a single leader. Rather than being greedy enough for power to beat all challengers, the monarch instead sees rule of the nation as a duty, a role that he or she was born to perform. This generally (not always) results in them taking the job more seriously than politicians, who are often as much concerned with making sure that the opposition doesn't get any say as they are with getting their own system accepted. Also, because they hold the position for life, they are much more ready to commit to long-term projects, such as the introduction of a completely reworked transport system (in fact, the mindset of a lot of monarchs/emperors through the ages has been to leave behind at least one great work that the country will remember them for - they often chose wrong, but when they chose right...)
The system is not without its flaws however - groups that disagree with the ruling power are generally opressed, or at worst executed as traitors (the "protestants-burning-catholics/ catholics-burning-protestants" era of British history). Also, uprisings and government overthrows are a real danger, as the only real way to make a major change is to stage a rebellion, kill the monarch and all their surrounding family and set yourself up as the new king (it helps if you were distantly related to the monarch in the first place).


For the record, I think a monarchy is better. It allows a nation to take a bit more pride in its leader than a democracy (especially if the current monarch is a good one)

[Protogod]

All systems are plagued with corruption and terribly vulnerable flaws. I'm not saying anarchy is better, cuz imo its just another system.

Frankly there is no system that truly good. However, democracy > monarchy, imho, for the sole fact that its stable (assuming thats what we're going wit has a trait of democracy)

stability > all, given that they are all corrupt.

[NightElfking]

Protogod has a point.

Despite the corruption, without government, there would just be no laws, there by criminals could get away with anything and killings would go on everyday.

So despite the fact that most government is corrupt, it is nesscary none the less.

If u want to tell me which government system worked the best in the past, I believe it was the system that Athens lived under. That the people would get together and discuss what to do. That one I think worked the best.:D

[ecyor0]

Protogod has a point.

Despite the corruption, without government, there would just be no laws, there by criminals could get away with anything and killings would go on everyday.

So despite the fact that most government is corrupt, it is nesscary none the less.

If u want to tell me which government system worked the best in the past, I believe it was the system that Athens lived under. That the people would get together and discuss what to do. That one I think worked the best.:D


...however the Greeks were defeated by the Romans. Also, the greeks weren't a true democracy - slaves and women couldn't vote

[Icarus]

There never has been a country ruled by true democracy.

I think monarchy is just really strange, because you centralize the highest authoritative power on a FAMILY, and the next leader is determined by the child of the last one. The requirements for a leader have nothing to do with their capability to lead, but the chance they are born in the right family. This just doesn't make sense to me. If you want a good leader, pick a good leader, don't flip a coin.

monarchy is better. It allows a nation to take a bit more pride in its leader than a democracy (especially if the current monarch is a good one)

And a good president? that sense of pride can exist in any governing system.

You also didn't think about the centralizing of hate towards government. In a democracy, there are those not with absolute power, but who are hated, while there are those with the same power who are not hated, therefore the entire system isn't corrupt, only a fraction.

In a monarchy, if the leader is corrupt, EVERYTHING is corrupt, since he/she has the power to override or write any laws he/she wants. The common defense to that will be parliamentary monarchy, to which I say that monarchs usually have governing power over the army, and as has happened many times, whenever parliament didn't sway the way the king wanted, he would just arrest/execute all of them, and appoint new ones he pays to behave well.

I'm not saying centralizing power is bad, because I believe that different stages and conditions within a country calls for different kinds of government, but ultra-centralizing, not only that, but by randomly choosing the leader, is just nonsensical and detrimental. Sometimes I really question if those medieval countries like france really could have survived under that kind of government.

Democracy is overall the best of all forms of government, mainly because whatever radicals there may be, get evened out by the majority, and since people choose their own legislation, most people are happy with government.

[Protogod]

Democracy is overall the best of all forms of government, mainly because whatever radicals there may be, get evened out by the majority, and since people choose their own legislation, most people are happy with government.
i disagree with this fraction of it. Radicals seize power all the time. The general populace is uneducated, uninformed, or just plain lazy. Yes, it's their own fault, but that allows the radicals to take advantage of them and siege the majority without clear purpose. This can then lead to discontent among the people who know wtf they're talking about.

Just cuz someone got their vote, it doesnt mean that they are gonna be happy w/ government. It means that if the person you voted for didnt get elected/turned out to be a bastard, you'll be pissed. Not to mention that in the USA, our votes dont even really matter. Electoral college, ftl.

[Icarus]

Yeah, it's far from perfect, mainly because of the amount of money and corporate control involved, but it's all up to the people to use their power to help control that, but because they don't care, and a democratic government is only supposed to abide by the peoples wishes, the government is actually doing it's job by doing whatever it wishes, which is usually in agreement with the wishes of the rich.

So ultimately, we just have to educate people for democracy to work.

[SilverCrusader]

too bad people are lazy asses that like to blaim others for they're problems.

[IrishDutchman]

For the record, I think a monarchy is better. It allows a nation to take a bit more pride in its leader than a democracy (especially if the current monarch is a good one)

So, monarchy is the best because it swells the population's ego? You're on to Nationalism now. IMO it causes more problems than it solves. It stimulates tension between nations. People feel more connected to their own state, but will sooner discriminate others too.

...however the Greeks were defeated by the Romans.

Is military prowess the only quality you look at when comparing systems? There are many other factors that play significant parts.

I myself find Democracy the better system. Yes, there are flaws in the practice, like proto said. Call it the lesser of two (or more) evils.
After all, we should still try to improve our democractic nations. The thereoretical, ideological democracy is what we should strive to be.
It is probably impossible to solve all the problems within the system, but we should nevertheless try to fix as much as we can.

[ecyor0]

Bravo! A well considered reply.

As for monarchy, I'm going with that because when it does work, it works like a charm. But, yeah, I already said that.

Nice avatar by the way

[IrishDutchman]

As for monarchy, I'm going with that because when it does work, it works like a charm. But, yeah, I already said that.


True, if the person in power is a good and honest leader, it can work. However, power tends to corrupt very easily, and sooner or later a twat will become king. There is no way of getting rid of a bad leader, short of violence.

[ChaosZon]

i disagree with this fraction of it. Radicals seize power all the time. The general populace is uneducated, uninformed, or just plain lazy. Yes, it's their own fault, but that allows the radicals to take advantage of them and siege the majority without clear purpose. This can then lead to discontent among the people who know wtf they're talking about.

This is ridiculous nonsense. The myth of the stupidity of the general populace is getting old. Stupid people do not create the richest, most powerful, most stable societies in human history, which is what the democratic Western nations are. They most certainly do not do it in post-industrial service-based (brainpower-based) economies, which the economies of Western democracies are.

Just cuz someone got their vote, it doesnt mean that they are gonna be happy w/ government. It means that if the person you voted for didnt get elected/turned out to be a bastard, you'll be pissed. Not to mention that in the USA, our votes dont even really matter. Electoral college, ftl.

You obviously don't know how the Electoral College works.

Each state is given a number of electoral votes equal to its number of Senators (2) + number of Representatives (anywhere from 1 to I think Cali has 52 Reps now right)?

These votes are allocated to the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote in that state. In most states the winner is legally mandated to get the votes, in some states the electoral college voters can vote for whoever they want but because they aren't dumb they vote for the winner of the popular vote in your state.

The electoral college ensures that the votes of citizens of sparsely populated states like Wyoming and Montana count. If the President was elected by straight popular vote candidates would focus on California, Texas, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, Ohio, and that's about it. Those people would get all the special attention and the promises from the candidates and those promises would be fulfilled. And the small states? They'd get hind tit.

Yeah, it's far from perfect, mainly because of the amount of money and corporate control involved, but it's all up to the people to use their power to help control that, but because they don't care, and a democratic government is only supposed to abide by the peoples wishes, the government is actually doing it's job by doing whatever it wishes, which is usually in agreement with the wishes of the rich.

Neither of those things are bad.

Corporations have done more to raise living standards than any other thing in human history. Not governments, not religions, the modern corporation has done more to raise your standard of living and mine than anything else.

The vast majority of money given to political parties - at least the GOP - comes in the form of individual donations. McCain-Feingold made it even harder for anyone but individuals to contribute. Now even the largest corporation can only donate $2,000 to a particular candidate. That is why the 527 organizations like MoveOn.org got so big, you can donate as much as money as you want to those.

The wishes of the rich is actually the wishes of the middle class. Any State that does not have the support of the middle class fails. This class warfare about the rich controlling politics and screwing the middle and lower classes over for their benefit is inaccurate nonsense.

Democracy - inside the framework of a Constitutional republic or Britain's common-law Westminster parliamentary system - is the ultimate form of human government. It gives everyone a voice and therefore a stake in the success of the government. It says that the power to govern is derived by the consent of the people, which means that governmental interests cannot sway too too far from the interests of the people or the government will be changed. The freedoms afforded non-governmental organizations and individuals ensures that there is too much power not in government hands for the government to have an easy time of trying to overstep its authority as defined by the Law. Britain or America could turn into a police state, but it would not be a process as quick or as easy as, say, Germany's descent from Weimar Republic to Nazidom.

[Nuts]

Just cuz someone got their vote, it doesnt mean that they are gonna be happy w/ government. It means that if the person you voted for didnt get elected/turned out to be a bastard, you'll be pissed. Not to mention that in the USA, our votes dont even really matter. Electoral college, ftl.

This bears repeating.


I wish to address a bit of ignorance that has been circulating amongst the American public ever since the 2000 election debacle. Those who opposed the election of George W. Bush would have you believe that the Electoral College is antiquated. But to understand the electoral college, one must have a basic knowledge of history and our constitution.

The United States is not a single "all encompassing" entity. It is a union of sovereign states that have decided (willingly or unwillingly) to join the union that is The United States of America. Under the Bill of Rights, in the United States Constitution, Amendment 10, also known as Amendment X specifically grants certain rights to the individual states.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states Respectively, or to the people.

Understanding what you now know, you should now realize that each individual state has the right to self govern so long as they do not defy federal law. As such, each state maintains a governor, a state legislature and a supreme court. The matters of the state remain the sole property of the state.

http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/8615/usmapra6.gif

You’ll note that the map of our country does indeed have dividing lines between the states. These aren’t merely for decoration, they actually have meaning. For demonstrative purposes, we’ll look at this from a layman's perspective.

United States > State > County > City > You

The Constitution clearly states that what doesn’t belong to the central government will be left to the state. The same is said of state versus local. The state does not concern itself with trivial matters of the county or city, and therefore these rights are left to local government.

This brings us back to the Electoral College, a system which has been called antiquated. Of course it’s antiquated, it’s over 200 years old, does this make it ineffective? Did states right have more significance 200 years ago than they do today? No. The advent of the electronic age has made communications faster, travel quicker, and information readily available to all who wish to inquire. Yet, with all these modern advances, the right of the state to remain autonomous has not changed.

The Electoral College was created for the sole purpose of retaining the states rights. It is the states that elect our presidents, not the people. This is a common misconception, and lesson that bears repeating until each of you understand the basis for this concept. The popular vote within the state dictates the states vote, thus the state casts X amount of electoral votes for the victor of their statewide race.

U.S. Supreme Court MCPHERSON v. BLACKER

The constitution does not provide that the appointment of electors shall be by popular vote, nor that the electors shall be voted for upon a general ticket, nor that the majority of those who exercise the elective franchise can alone choose the electors. It recognizes that the people act through their representatives in the legislature, and leaves it to the legislature exclusively to define the method of effecting the object.

Now, I have given you the basis for a general comprehension of the Electoral College and its significance in today's government. I do not ever want to hear again that the president was elected illegally, nor do I wish to hear that he was selected, not elected. All of these ignorant remarks are inflammatory in nature and very uneducated to say the least. You may contest the viability or necessity of the Electoral College, you may be of the opinion that it should be abolished, and I won't argue with you. But one thing is for certain; the president of the United States of America was elected legally and ethically according to the United States Constitution as it has existed for over 200 years.

End of story.

[Icarus]

Neither of those things are bad.

Corporations have done more to raise living standards than any other thing in human history. Not governments, not religions, the modern corporation has done more to raise your standard of living and mine than anything else.

The vast majority of money given to political parties - at least the GOP - comes in the form of individual donations. McCain-Feingold made it even harder for anyone but individuals to contribute. Now even the largest corporation can only donate $2,000 to a particular candidate. That is why the 527 organizations like MoveOn.org got so big, you can donate as much as money as you want to those.

The wishes of the rich is actually the wishes of the middle class. Any State that does not have the support of the middle class fails. This class warfare about the rich controlling politics and screwing the middle and lower classes over for their benefit is inaccurate nonsense.

Democracy - inside the framework of a Constitutional republic or Britain's common-law Westminster parliamentary system - is the ultimate form of human government. It gives everyone a voice and therefore a stake in the success of the government. It says that the power to govern is derived by the consent of the people, which means that governmental interests cannot sway too too far from the interests of the people or the government will be changed. The freedoms afforded non-governmental organizations and individuals ensures that there is too much power not in government hands for the government to have an easy time of trying to overstep its authority as defined by the Law. Britain or America could turn into a police state, but it would not be a process as quick or as easy as, say, Germany's descent from Weimar Republic to Nazidom.

If the wishes of the rich in america are the same as the middle class, please explain how all the tax cuts towards wealthy citizens, thus requiring middle and lower classes to fill that gap, is in the interests of the middle class.

Also, there are many ways a corporation could feed millions into a political campaign, which are subtle and legal. For example, large political fundraising groups can have different foundations which can pool together to be distributed however the group wants. For example, Hilary Clinton's fundraising organization can have sister organizations for say... stem cell research. The money coming from the stem cell research fund can be legally "laundered" into Hilary Clinton's campaign fund. But that is irrelevant.

You're talking about campaign funds for politicians to stay in office. I'm talking about lobbying, during their term.

The middle class here in america is so torn in two that they don't have a single identity. The rich, however, are much more in political agreement, and lobby for favorable legislation towards them and their political stances.

Do you honestly think corporate involvement in legislation is a good thing? By law corporations are supposed to maximize profits for their shareholders. Meaning, whatever the corporation does, it has to be something that will make it more money. Politics becomes dishonest once money is involved.

Democratic government isn't supposed to be a corporation. It's job isn't to make the most money. It's job is to guide it's people on political problems, and organize all the federal workings of a country necessary for it to survive. It's not supposed to make you richer, more powerful, etc. Corporations legal goal is to do just that, which just deludes the issues and purpose of government. Oil companies should have no involvement on energy legislation. Churches should have no involvement on abortion. It is up to our politicians, who we choose, to make those decisions.

[Protogod]

The myth of the stupidity of the general populace is getting old. Stupid people do not create the richest, most powerful, most stable societies in human history, which is what the democratic Western nations are. in the general populace they do. All you need is some intelligent elite to run the show. Rome had it's architects and senators, but what of all the slaves and farmers etc? They had their geniuses, and they had their failures. Massive amounts of corruption riddled the roman government. Senators cheated and used their support base. And you are saying that this couldnt happen today? In a society full of mass media, cacophonies of mixed messages, and a general loss for political demonstration, with a staggaringly low voter turnout? Keeping in mind that the even the Largest Anti-War Protest couldn't sway our government away from war? I digress, society doesnt work in some magical perfect way that you seem to think it does. People go to work, do thier jobs, and for all intents and purposes, dont give much more of a shit in politics than "im democrat" or "im republican." Even foreign countries can see our ignorance, and you would have us ignore all the tell-tale signs of ineptitude? They most certainly do not do it in post-industrial service-based (brainpower-based) economies truth be told, the primary job field is the tertiary, SERVICE based industry, not the brain power based industry.

You obviously don't know how the Electoral College works.
because i disagree with you?
Each state is given a number of electoral votes equal to its number of Senators (2) + number of Representatives (anywhere from 1 to I think Cali has 52 Reps now right)? thank you, because I dont know 7th grade social studies.
electoral college voters can vote for whoever they want but because they aren't dumb they vote for the winner of the popular vote in your state. Usually. Thats why its a big deal when they dont.
If the President was elected by straight popular vote candidates would focus on California, Texas, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, Ohio, and that's about it. you mean the swing states that are already focused on in elections? You'll have to do better to convince me, cuz from that list, it looks like it'd be a an even MORE varied campaign than modern campaigns focusing on the bold states.

But, ya know, thats just my opinion. That doesnt matter though, cuz im not here to "run circles around [genocide] ." Stop trying to show people up. If you're here to stroke your own ego, you'll miss common-sense arguments.

[ChaosZon]

If the wishes of the rich in america are the same as the middle class, please explain how all the tax cuts towards wealthy citizens, thus requiring middle and lower classes to fill that gap, is in the interests of the middle class.

The middle and lower classes are not meant to fill any gap. Nor do they. What "fills in" the gap are the greater earnings of all, but especially "the rich," resulting from greater investment made possible by lower tax rates.

It is irrefutable that lower tax rates for everyone but particularly "the rich" and large businesses result in greater economic growth that consequently actually bring in higher tax revenues for the State than was the case when the tax rates were higher.

Also, there are many ways a corporation could feed millions into a political campaign, which are subtle and legal. For example, large political fundraising groups can have different foundations which can pool together to be distributed however the group wants. For example, Hilary Clinton's fundraising organization can have sister organizations for say... stem cell research. The money coming from the stem cell research fund can be legally "laundered" into Hilary Clinton's campaign fund. But that is irrelevant.

It is irrelevant because first of all there shouldn't be any restrictions on campaign donations period, and second of all because you are not accurate; campaign-finance laws don't allow that kind of "laundering."

You're talking about campaign funds for politicians to stay in office. I'm talking about lobbying, during their term.


There's certainly nothing wrong with lobbying.

The problem is that corporations have realized that the government is more than willing to subsidize them in various ways with taxpayer money and all it takes is a little lobbying to do that. The government actively participates in shielding various enterprises from the risks of the free market with taxpayer money, which shouldn't happen because the government shouldn't be involved in the economy at all.

The middle class here in america is so torn in two that they don't have a single identity. The rich, however, are much more in political agreement, and lobby for favorable legislation towards them and their political stances.

What are you talking about? The middle class is not a monolithic political bloc and neither are "the rich."

Political stances are not dictated by economics. Another Marxist lie Economic stances are dictated by politics.

Do you honestly think corporate involvement in legislation is a good thing?

Of course it is, as long as it does not involve government subsidization of private enterprises.

By law corporations are supposed to maximize profits for their shareholders. Meaning, whatever the corporation does, it has to be something that will make it more money.

And there is something wrong with this?

Politics becomes dishonest once money is involved.

No.

Politics becomes dishonest not when money is involved, but when votes are involved. The easiest way to get votes is to spend money on so-called earmark pork projects, bringing jobs and such to your constituents that you can then advertise about at election time. If corporations didn't deliver prosperity, politicians wouldn't touch them with a ten foot pole. They do, and prosperity delivers votes.

Democratic government isn't supposed to be a corporation. It's job isn't to make the most money. It's job is to guide it's people on political problems, and organize all the federal workings of a country necessary for it to survive. It's not supposed to make you richer, more powerful, etc. Corporations legal goal is to do just that, which just deludes the issues and purpose of government. Oil companies should have no involvement on energy legislation. Churches should have no involvement on abortion. It is up to our politicians, who we choose, to make those decisions.

Democratic government isn't supposed to be a corporation? What does that even mean? Stop throwing out Communistspeak and start speaking English please.

Government's job is to increase the prosperity and safety of the people. So yes, its job is indeed to create conditions where money making is easier. The government is not supposed to make me richer and more powerful, yes. It is supposed to create - or at least not destroy - conditions that present me with a good opportunity to enrich myself.

Of course oil companies should be involved in energy legislation. That legislation affects their ability to deliver a highly demanded product to the marketplace. If they believe that a piece of legislation will negatively affect that ability, they should, as their duty to both themselves and their consumers, yell their heads off. And they do.

Of course churches should be involved in abortion. Why shouldn't they? Because they hold a position on the issue different than yours? That's too bad really. They have a duty to speak out on issues that they feel affect them as well, and seeing as how they believe abortion is a great spiritual crime, and they believe it is in their self-interest to prevent such crimes, abortion is indeed something they should speak out on.

[Protogod]

It is irrefutable that lower tax rates for everyone but particularly "the rich" and large businesses result in greater economic growth that consequently actually bring in higher tax revenues for the State than was the case when the tax rates were higher.
Not so irrefutable. This was the policy shortly before America's great Depression. Very prosperous, no?

[ChaosZon]

Not so irrefutable. This was the policy shortly before America's great Depression. Very prosperous, no?

What are you talking about?

1919 to 1929 saw the largest, most sustained economic explosion in American history to that point. The man responsible for much of this was the Secretary of the Treasury at the time, Andrew Mellon, who advocated for and succeeded in getting large tax cuts in 1921, 1924, and 1926.

What caused the Great Depression was certainly not low tax rates. I personally believe that the Austrian School of economics explanation is largely correct and that it was largely the interventionist and misguided monetary policy of the Federal Reserve, which routinely increased the money supply during the 1920s, that was the major cause of the stock market crash which was compounded by the truly terrible Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act.

But to say that low tax rates had anything to do with causing the Depression is ridiculous.

[Icarus]

By "involvement in legislation" I didn't mean to voice opinions, I meant to pay politicians to sway their way.

The government's job isn't to give you the economic opportunity, that's the corporation's job.

Manipulation of a democratic government by corporations is immoral because the government is controlled by the people. It's decisions on political issues is supposed to be based on what the people want, and what is best for them, not what will make them the most money. If the people want government to increase funding for alternative fuel sources, oil companies should not be able to change that.

EDIT: did you come in here just to attack me? what you posted was entirely irrelevant to the topic

[3Vee]

]Democracy
The more stable system of the two. Ruled by majority opinion, meaning no-one should feel that they have no say in how the country functions. However, people do nonetheless. Also, the elected officials know that their time in office is limited, so they focus only on short term problems - long term problems are hardly even considered unless they can be used as leverage against an opposing party. Also, because majority rules, mediocrity rules - the system tries to please everyone, which doesn't work. Decisive action of any kind is generally mired in political debate and one-up-manship. Also, there is nothing to stop the government performing decidedly undemocratic actions in secret.

I'm taking this in reverse order. What stops undemocratic government options is - theoretically - a free press and the supposed openess of a true democracy. As has been pointed out, however, no one's ever really tried a true democracy. Athens was probably closest... sort of. If we only count citizens. In many of the modern democracies, we're currently experiencing low public interest and voter turnout - a common problem historically - lowering the accountability level.

Plato a couple thousand years ago laid out a cyclical pattern of government. It's debateable whether he intended it to be a recognition of something that's pretty much unavoidable, or just a theory of what often happens is debateable. But he considered democracy the least stable form of government, because it depends on popular will.

Democracy - while it can be maintained - provides a great basis for continuity of government, and stability in that sense, but little for continuity of policy. And if the people ever lose interest, then its doomed.

Monarchy
A very fickle system. The prosperity of the country is tied to the strength of a single individual, meaning that as the monarch fails, the country fails. That said, when the ruler is strong the country enjoys incredible prosperity. Throughout history, the successful empires and kingdoms of the world have been the ones with a single leader.

The Athenian, Roman, American empires all grew up out of democratic or republican systems. The Athenian empire was weakened by war with Sparta (a constitutional monarchy), and broke up. The Roman empire made almost all its conquests under the Republic. About the only territories added under the empire were Britain and Dacia. The American empire is still essentially democratic.

The British and Chinese empires grew up under constitutional and bureaucratic monarchical systems, respectively. These sort of fit your characterization, but it would be more accurate to say a single figurehead or chief executive, rather than leader.

Rather than being greedy enough for power to beat all challengers, the monarch instead sees rule of the nation as a duty, a role that he or she was born to perform...

Well, assuming the best. There are definite records of tons of bad monarchs.

The title of "most stable nation in the world", historically, is probably a toss-up between Russia, Britain, and China. France - at least until the 18th century - and Spain are close seconds. The Roman state in some form lasted for about 700 years as a power... but fell.

All of these nations are based in some sort of monarchical system. The UK is the model for a constitutional monarchy throughout history. From the Anglo-Saxon elective system to the reforms starting with Magna Charta to the Parliamentary systems implemented and so forth it's maintained - for the most part - a direct line of rulers, a national identity, etc.

China, as mentioned, is a model - or was - of the bureaucratic monarchy based on intelligence. It's been much weaker in some sense since late 19th century meddling by Europeans led to a series of revolutions, but its stability before that is amazing.

The French monarchy was amazingly stable - especially by comparison to other Medieval princedoms - until the 18th century and the weak rulers after Louis XIV. But you'll notice the French still have an amazing national identity, largely forged under the late Bourbons.

The Spanish system, apart from the Franco chaos, has been more or less stable for over a thousand years, with only minor civil wars - again, apart from the Franco mess. While the form of government hasn't remained the same, it exemplifies a stable popular mentality.

Russia isn't a model for anything governmental, really. It's claim to fame is the overwhelming national identity and persistence that's lasted 1500 years or so and doesn't seem to be weakening.

Which brings me to my point. To my thinking, the two points of government are justice and preservation of the state. Any government depends to some extent on the will of the people: if the government is too corrupt, it will be overthrown, either by demagogues or popular revolt - unless the will of the people is itself corrupted or unconcerned. Compare the fate of the Roman republic - overthrown by Caesar and Augustus with popular support because people cared - to that of the empire: invaded from outside because no one cared.

But balance is necessary: a direct exercise of power by the people is dangerous: it can either be overused, as in Athens, or assumed and ignored, as in much of modern-day America. The best way to recognize the powerbase while giving a little cushion is through an American-style republic, as originally written, or by a constitutional monarchy. Either a single individual - monarch - or the mob is far too fickle to trust directly with power.

[ecyor0]

Very well put. I think I'll go with his idea now

[ChaosZon]

By "involvement in legislation" I didn't mean to voice opinions, I meant to pay politicians to sway their way.

The democratic system of government has the least systemic corruption of any governmental system.

The government's job isn't to give you the economic opportunity, that's the corporation's job.

Really? Where did you come up with that?

What's interesting is that in a Communist state the government is the sole provider of economic opportunity - except of course for things like those private land plots that took up only 2% of the USSR's arable land but accounted for around half of the USSR's agriculture and livestock products.

Manipulation of a democratic government by corporations is immoral because the government is controlled by the people.

That doesn't make corporate lobbying immoral.

It's decisions on political issues is supposed to be based on what the people want, and what is best for them, not what will make them the most money.

Well why don't you just sit on down and give me your objective calculation of utility so I can refrain from saying "you're full of shit" for telling me that making money is not what is best for people.

If the people want government to increase funding for alternative fuel sources, oil companies should not be able to change that.

Why not? The US government has had numerous alternative fuel programs including the SynthFuel Corporation created during the Carter Administration, all have been horrible failures. The only real innovation in alternative fuels has come from the private sector.

EDIT: did you come in here just to attack me? what you posted was entirely irrelevant to the topic

What you said was inaccurate, illogical, invalid, and off-topic. Don't blame me for you going off-topic with some Communist nonsense and me calling you on it.

[Icarus]

Nothing I have said in this thread has anything to do with communism. All I did was show why democracy was better than monarchy, then you came in and tried to denounce my claims because apparently democracy is communist.

That doesn't make corporate lobbying immoral.


The democratic system of government has the least systemic corruption of any governmental system.



You sort of need to logically refute my claims, like maybe explaining WHY. You tend to take the Ann Coulter approach and attack me personally along with my beliefs without a shred of support.

If you really want to "call me out" for my communist views, make a thread, present evidence why communism is worse, and then maybe you would see that arguing like an elementary schooler on the playground is both unproductive and harmful to this great internet community.

[lammas]

The more stable system of the two. Ruled by majority opinion, meaning no-one should feel that they have no say in how the country functions. However, people do nonetheless.

I believe that the reason why people feel that they have no say in doings of democratically elected government is not any error in democratic system it self, but the fact that in large nations where representative democracy is used people actually have no say in their governments actions even if the government uses assumed mandate from the people as an excuse for anything they want to do. I believe that you are generalisating the problems of one form of democracy to all democratic systems.

Also, because majority rules, mediocrity rules - the system tries to please everyone, which doesn't work.

Can you give some examples about this? And in my opinion it is far better to try pleasing everyone and fail than to try to please only small elite and succes.

Also, there is nothing to stop the government performing decidedly undemocratic actions in secret.

And the worst case scenario of those undemocratic actions is monarchy. Anyways you seem to assume that democracy cannot work unless it has a government and I dont agree with this.

That said, when the ruler is strong the country enjoys incredible prosperity. Throughout history, the successful empires and kingdoms of the world have been the ones with a single leader.

How do you define succes of an empire? Also you must note that the most horrible crimes of history have been performed by states with single leader (stalin and hitler... tho I must admit that USA gets quite close, but its hardly a democracy anyways. Stalin and hitler of course werent born to be monarchs but you wrote about single leaders in general. And many born monarchs have been totally crazy murderers too)

[Protogod]

What's interesting is that in a Communist state the government is the sole provider of economic opportunity - except of course for things like those private land plots that took up only 2% of the USSR's arable land but accounted for around half of the USSR's agriculture and livestock products.

Communism has nothing to do with this argument. Wtf are you even talking about. I can see now how you "ran circles around GA." :rolleyes:

It's real easy to run circles around people if you're arguing a completely different subject than they are.

[ChaosZon]

Nothing I have said in this thread has anything to do with communism.

Except for when you pushed blatantly Communist positions regarding corporations and the government's role in the economy.

All I did was show why democracy was better than monarchy, then you came in and tried to denounce my claims because apparently democracy is communist.

You're lying.

Tell me, do you commonly lie in these kinds of situations?

You sort of need to logically refute my claims, like maybe explaining WHY. You tend to take the Ann Coulter approach and attack me personally along with my beliefs without a shred of support.

The irony is killing me. You haven't supported a single thing you've said. I also haven't attacked you. You're rather compulsive on the lying, aren't you?

I did support those two statements, re-read my posts. Lying seems to be a habit for you.

If you really want to "call me out" for my communist views, make a thread, present evidence why communism is worse, and then maybe you would see that arguing like an elementary schooler on the playground is both unproductive and harmful to this great internet community.

Irony... killing... crushing me...

You've argued like a 4 year old and now that you've been called on it you do the great internet switcharound and claim that I've been doing what you have. You've done nothing but assert things without support or reason, all of them anti-capitalist, and then you whine when I call you a Communist even though elsewhere you proudly proclaim that you are a Communist.

A liar and a hypocrite, you're going good now.

Communism has nothing to do with this argument.

Oh gee this is going to be embarrassing.

I've said, not counting this post, "Communist" in this thread something like three times.

All were in direct response to blatantly Communist positions.

The first time was in response to this quote:

The government's job isn't to give you the economic opportunity, that's the corporation's job.

I found it ironic that a Communist would say that because the State creates ALL the economic opportunity in a Communist state, and pointed that out.

How is that off-topic protogod? You tell me.

The second time was an off-topic direct response to a quote by Numbers that was already off-topic.

So he's allowed to be off-topic but I'm not?

The third time I mentioned Communism was again, in direct response to a quote that is very ironic because the person who said it is a self-professed Communist:

Democratic government isn't supposed to be a corporation. It's job isn't to make the most money. It's job is to guide it's people on political problems, and organize all the federal workings of a country necessary for it to survive. It's not supposed to make you richer, more powerful, etc. Corporations legal goal is to do just that, which just deludes the issues and purpose of government. Oil companies should have no involvement on energy legislation. Churches should have no involvement on abortion. It is up to our politicians, who we choose, to make those decisions.

So protogod I was not being off-topic.

You are, though, and your post is nothing but flames and flamebait.

Wtf are you even talking about. I can see now how you "ran circles around GA."

It's real easy to run circles around people if you're arguing a completely different subject than they are.

I just embarrassed you. Next time don't open your mouth before reading because it's obvious you didn't read a thing I wrote here, you just read Numbers and went off that. Didn't work out too well for you, did it?

A liar and an illiterate, the Left is really well-represented around here.

[Dark_Soul74]

Oh gee this is going to be embarrassing.Look at how true this is, as I counter all of your positions by refuting everything, calling people liars, and resorting to ad hominem and straight-up refusing to acknowledge points(figure out the joke!):

You're lying.

Tell me, do you commonly lie in these kinds of situations?You're lying.

Tell me, do you commonly lie in these kinds of situations?

The irony is killing me. You haven't supported a single thing you've said. I also haven't attacked you. You're rather compulsive on the lying, aren't you?The irony is killing me. You haven't supported a single thing you've said. You're rather compulsive on the lying, aren't you?

You've argued like a 4 year old and now that you've been called on it you do the great internet switcharound and claim that I've been doing what you have. You've done nothing but assert things without support or reasonYou've argued like a 4 year old and now that you've been called on it you do the great internet switcharound and claim that I've been doing what you have. You've done nothing but assert things without support or reason.

A liar and a hypocrite, you're going good now.A liar and a hypocrite, you're going good now.

I was not being off-topic. You are, though, and your post is nothing but flames and flamebait.Nobody was being off-topic. You are, though, and your post is nothing but flames and flamebait.

I just embarrassed you. Next time don't open your mouth before reading because it's obvious you didn't read a thing[...] Didn't work out too well for you, did it?I just embarrassed you. Next time don't open your mouth before reading because it's obvious you didn't read a thing. Didn't work out too well for you, did it?

Irony... killing... crushing me...Irony... killing... crushing me... fo realz.

I don't debate, but I sure as hell can shoot down posts of nothing but logical fallacies. All you do is ignore things against you, accuse people of lying, flame, troll, set up horribly obvious straw men, and every other half-***ed method of debate out there. You don't debate the points, you do everything you can to discount them when your one or two bits of personal opinion can't cut it. So have a tantrum and run back to BlizzForums, so we'll finally know what roles were what back when the "microbiologist" was there.

[Protogod]

I just embarrassed you. Next time don't open your mouth before reading because it's obvious you didn't read a thing I wrote here, you just read Numbers and went off that. Didn't work out too well for you, did it? Embarassed me? lol, hardly. You just took a remotely relevant post and tried to make it prove me wrong...and then failed...and then bragged about it to yourself. Stop giving yourself high fives and listen to, erm, EVERYONE ELSE ON THE FORUM. In case you didnt notice, you arent garnering the support you expected.

A liar and an illiterate, the Left is really well-represented around here.
Correct me if i'm wrong, but the left pushes education. Isn't it your right-wing buddies that wanna cut funding to the truth, I mean, Education.

[ecyor0]

The Berlin Wall....

On the left side...

Plain concrete wall. You could walk right up to it and grafitti it without any danger

On the right side...

A large empty space lit by searchlights at night, with sentry towers ready to pick off anyone who got near. Also miles of barbed wire fence, a trench or two, and a couple of bunkers. (If you don't believe me, go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_wall and in the contents, click on "Layout and Modifications" to jump to that bit, then read that section - sorry that's a little bulky, but my linking skills are mediocre at best)

[lammas]

Excuse me but I dont now quite see that what does berlin wall and its bunkers have to do with anything?

[Icarus]

There never has been a country ruled by true democracy.

I think monarchy is just really strange, because you centralize the highest authoritative power on a FAMILY, and the next leader is determined by the child of the last one. The requirements for a leader have nothing to do with their capability to lead, but the chance they are born in the right family. This just doesn't make sense to me. If you want a good leader, pick a good leader, don't flip a coin.



And a good president? that sense of pride can exist in any governing system.

You also didn't think about the centralizing of hate towards government. In a democracy, there are those not with absolute power, but who are hated, while there are those with the same power who are not hated, therefore the entire system isn't corrupt, only a fraction.

In a monarchy, if the leader is corrupt, EVERYTHING is corrupt, since he/she has the power to override or write any laws he/she wants. The common defense to that will be parliamentary monarchy, to which I say that monarchs usually have governing power over the army, and as has happened many times, whenever parliament didn't sway the way the king wanted, he would just arrest/execute all of them, and appoint new ones he pays to behave well.

I'm not saying centralizing power is bad, because I believe that different stages and conditions within a country calls for different kinds of government, but ultra-centralizing, not only that, but by randomly choosing the leader, is just nonsensical and detrimental. Sometimes I really question if those medieval countries like france really could have survived under that kind of government.

Democracy is overall the best of all forms of government, mainly because whatever radicals there may be, get evened out by the majority, and since people choose their own legislation, most people are happy with government.


This was my first post, responding to the topic. The bold is the support for my other statements.

Except for when you pushed blatantly Communist positions regarding corporations and the government's role in the economy.

I said:



The government's job isn't to give you the economic opportunity, that's the corporation's job.


Communism is giving all economic control to the government. I said the opposite. America happens to be capitalist at the moment. Where do you live?

I take back what I said about you talking the ann coulter approach. You ARE ann coulter.

[ecyor0]

Excuse me but I dont now quite see that what does berlin wall and its bunkers have to do with anything?

Just adding my 2 cents worth to what Protogod was saying

Sorry, should have made that clear

[ChaosZon]

I don't debate, but I sure as hell can shoot down posts of nothing but logical fallacies. All you do is ignore things against you, accuse people of lying, flame, troll, set up horribly obvious straw men, and every other half-***ed method of debate out there. You don't debate the points, you do everything you can to discount them when your one or two bits of personal opinion can't cut it. So have a tantrum and run back to BlizzForums, so we'll finally know what roles were what back when the "microbiologist" was there.

Thank you for conceding.

What I said was on-topic and I proved it in a fashion humiliating to you.

In response you threw a temper tantrum.

Embarassed me? lol, hardly. You just took a remotely relevant post and tried to make it prove me wrong...and then failed...and then bragged about it to yourself. Stop giving yourself high fives and listen to, erm, EVERYONE ELSE ON THE FORUM. In case you didnt notice, you arent garnering the support you expected.

Oh damn.

We've gone from "you were totally off-topic" to "remotely relevant" so I'm just gonna cut to the chase and conclude that you are full of it, you know you're full of it, and you're just trying to put up a brave face to hide it.

I expected support where? Where did I say anything like that?

Why is it that you guys feel the need to repeatedly lie? You can bitch and moan about it all you want, this is about the fifth time in this thread alone that someone has told me I said something that I did not say.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but the left pushes education. Isn't it your right-wing buddies that wanna cut funding to the truth, I mean, Education.

This is what I'm talking about. And you call me a troll? Conservatism hates education? Where do you come up with this bigoted nonsense? Would you accept the same thing being said about black people or Muslims? Why is it acceptable to spew out the political equivalent hate speech towards me?

Wait I actually read what Dark Soul had to say and...

It must be quoted again.

I don't debate, but I sure as hell can shoot down posts of nothing but logical fallacies.

ROFL

You haven't been able to point out a single one, but I've been explaining yours in detail. I guess you can't handle it.

All you do is ignore things against you,

If by ignore you mean refute, yes.

accuse people of lying,

It is undeniable that you guys have repeatedly lied, saying I said things I did not say. There is no accusation here, all you have to do is read the thread.

flame,

Calling someone a liar when it is undeniable they are a liar is not a flame. You guys have reported things I have said which a quotation for which cannot be found anywhere, and you know I didn't say it.

troll,

Actually I'd say I'm the only poster here who isn't a troll. You guys carry on the intellectual discussion of fifth-graders in most of these threads.

set up horribly obvious straw men,

Why don't you point out some? If they're so horribly obvious you should be able to quote some.

and every other half-***ed method of debate out there.

Point out some.


I take back what I said about you talking the ann coulter approach. You ARE ann coulter.

You're a waste of gray matter who reverts to the basest, most childish attacks and logical fallacies when met with someone you can't effectively handle.

You people have lied about what I have said repeatedly and you accuse me of what all of you deliberately engage in yourselves. I'm not breaking any rules and I'm not leaving. Too bad.

[Dark_Soul74]

Thank you for conceding.

What I said was on-topic and I proved it in a fashion humiliating to you.

In response you threw a temper tantrum.Considering that was my first post here, I must pose the question: Are you ****ing high?

ROFL

You haven't been able to point out a single one, but I've been explaining yours in detail. I guess you can't handle it.Once again, first post in the topic. I absolutely need to meet your supplier.

If by ignore you mean refute, yes.Your method of "refuting" points is to call the poster a liar, ignore, ad hominem, etc. Should be obvious if you've even read what you've typed.

It is undeniable that you guys have repeatedly lied, saying I said things I did not say. There is no accusation here, all you have to do is read the thread.Calling someone a liar when it is undeniable they are a liar is not a flame. You guys have reported things I have said which a quotation for which cannot be found anywhere, and you know I didn't say it.Point out the lies please. Just point them out to me. If you're trying to say everyone is lying about the communism thing, I've got that answered a little bit further down the page.

Actually I'd say I'm the only poster here who isn't a troll. You guys carry on the intellectual discussion of fifth-graders in most of these threads.I'll take care of this with the following quotestravaganza:
A liar and an illiterate, the Left is really well-represented around here.
...
You've argued like a 4 year old and now that you've been called on it you do the great internet switcharound and claim that I've been doing what you have. You've done nothing but assert things without support or reason, all of them anti-capitalist, and then you whine when I call you a Communist even though elsewhere you proudly proclaim that you are a Communist.
...
You're lying.

Tell me, do you commonly lie in these kinds of situations?
...
Lying seems to be a habit for you.
...
What I said was on-topic and I proved it in a fashion humiliating to you.

In response you threw a temper tantrum.
...
you are full of it, you know you're full of it, and you're just trying to put up a brave face to hide it.
...
Why is it that you guys feel the need to repeatedly lie? You can bitch and moan about it all you want
...
Stop throwing out Communistspeak and start speaking English please
They're just so hard to find!.

Why don't you point out some? If they're so horribly obvious you should be able to quote some.k.

Well, primarily, there's you bringing 124167's apparent communism into the thread. Without him even stating anything nearly "communist"(he talked about class seperation, and seperation of government and corporation, which seems fairly uncommunist to me), you went off on him and started saying that he was spouting "Another Marxist lie", and that his actions were "Communistspeak". Classic ad hominem, by accusing him of being a dirty, filthy communist who argued only to support communism subtly, as well as manipulating a straw men argument as a part of that, by constantly misrepresenting his actions as communist-based. Is that enough of a straw man argument for you? Although, what's worse is you still continue to say that you weren't the one to bring up communism.

You're a waste of gray matter who reverts to the basest, most childish attacks and logical fallacies when met with someone you can't effectively handle.

You people have lied about what I have said repeatedly and you accuse me of what all of you deliberately engage in yourselves. I'm not breaking any rules and I'm not leaving. Too bad.Oh look, I missed some of your trolling comments. Oh well.

[Protogod]

Actually I'd say I'm the only poster here who isn't a troll.
Then leave.

[Neo]

Alright enough.

Could we at least attempt discussion of a serious nature without reverting to personal attacks and/or basically pointless repartee about other members and/or their beliefs and/or their own personal positions?

I don't care if someone is a satanist paraplegic smoking pot, if they can discuss things seriously and without reverting to trolling, then that would be awesome. If not seriously creepy.

Thread closed. Theres no reason to leave it open if you aren't even going to discuss the actual topic.

EDIT: In the future, please try to stay on topic. Thanks.

-Neo